![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
preference utilitarianism ftw, I guess
Dec. 17th, 2020 11:11 pmToday I was *trying* to determine whether a poem in an old birthday card was an Established Thing or something the sender wrote herself, and instead I stumbled across this hardcore hedonic utilitarian critiquing Brave New World and talking about what a *properly* done utopia would be like.
My first thought was "how is this dude coming across so badly? I know utilitarian arguments *can* be made well, I've seen them, so what exactly is the difference that's making him give off such creepy vibes?"
My second thought was "wow, you can really tell this dude's not autistic".
I tried pulling at that thread a little more, and I don't think it's that he's *allistic* necessarily--autism is a big umbrella--but that, specifically, he talks like someone who has *never been overstimulated*.
He thinks that if variety is good, then more of it is better; if evolution-in-the-colloquial-sense is good, then more of it is better; if pleasure is good, then more of it is better. This *absolutely does not* fit with my own experience: even *pleasure itself* can be bad if it is too intense. Not in some abstract Catholic-guilt way, but viscerally aversive.
(This does *not* seem to be a two-directional sign overflow: I am very not a masochist and have never had sufficiently intense suffering wrap around and become enjoyable. Admittedly, there are absolutely forms of pain far worse than anything I've ever experienced, but I'm hardly going to test them out: besides, masochists of my acquaintance generally indicate it doesn't need to be that intense to start working.)
---
...honestly, I'm not sure I even value happiness that much? It's...nice, sure, in moderate quantities, but it hardly seems like something to base a value system around. Possibly part of it is that I'm so accustomed to operating at the second level of the Hierarchy of Needs that I can't wrap my head around the concept of wanting more than safety, but I don't think that's the whole story.
I look at that article and I think, why is *this* what he wants? He dismisses other desires as the legacy of "selfish DNA", but why latch on to *happiness* as the desire to be endorsed? What makes *that* special?
(I wonder if he would just sputter and go "It just...*is*! How could it *not* be?!". I know I tend to sputter at people who don't have a strong will to live.)
My first thought was "how is this dude coming across so badly? I know utilitarian arguments *can* be made well, I've seen them, so what exactly is the difference that's making him give off such creepy vibes?"
My second thought was "wow, you can really tell this dude's not autistic".
I tried pulling at that thread a little more, and I don't think it's that he's *allistic* necessarily--autism is a big umbrella--but that, specifically, he talks like someone who has *never been overstimulated*.
He thinks that if variety is good, then more of it is better; if evolution-in-the-colloquial-sense is good, then more of it is better; if pleasure is good, then more of it is better. This *absolutely does not* fit with my own experience: even *pleasure itself* can be bad if it is too intense. Not in some abstract Catholic-guilt way, but viscerally aversive.
(This does *not* seem to be a two-directional sign overflow: I am very not a masochist and have never had sufficiently intense suffering wrap around and become enjoyable. Admittedly, there are absolutely forms of pain far worse than anything I've ever experienced, but I'm hardly going to test them out: besides, masochists of my acquaintance generally indicate it doesn't need to be that intense to start working.)
---
...honestly, I'm not sure I even value happiness that much? It's...nice, sure, in moderate quantities, but it hardly seems like something to base a value system around. Possibly part of it is that I'm so accustomed to operating at the second level of the Hierarchy of Needs that I can't wrap my head around the concept of wanting more than safety, but I don't think that's the whole story.
I look at that article and I think, why is *this* what he wants? He dismisses other desires as the legacy of "selfish DNA", but why latch on to *happiness* as the desire to be endorsed? What makes *that* special?
(I wonder if he would just sputter and go "It just...*is*! How could it *not* be?!". I know I tend to sputter at people who don't have a strong will to live.)
